Hot tub time machine —

The Atari 2600 (originally sold as the Atari Video Computer System, or VCS) was by far the most popular console of its era. It did much to popularize switchable cartridge-based games. Despite many efforts, Atari would never again replicate its success.

They wanted to know: was a "#NotNolan" campaign too quick to pass judgement based on salacious rumors? Or was it a measured response to how the gaming and technology industries look so many years later?

A report from Kotaku's Cecilia D'Anastasio came closest to answering that question on Monday. For the report, she interviewed a compelling spectrum of women who are perhaps best equipped to speak to the question: Bushnell's female peers within Atari, as well as female industry researchers and historians. The report doesn't come close to a definitive answer, and its hesitation to render any verdict on the matter is perhaps its greatest strength.

Atari didn’t “prepare us for the real world”

The report's most interesting details come from those who worked with Bushnell during his tenure, which ended when he sold the company to Warner in 1976. The company's first market researcher, Carol Kantor, and credit manager, Mireille Chevalier, each tell stories about having opportunities to thrive based solely on their ability to deliver results. The report points to high numbers of female hires in the manufacturing and research departments, and it includes a refutation from longtime Bushnell business partner Loni Reeder: "There’s a collective anger amongst us toward the individuals who made [#NotNolan] a big deal."

When pressed, two prominent women in the company's creative forces—which were known for having fewer female hires—offered more unclear feedback. The first, Centipede co-creator Dona Bailey, declined comment to Kotaku and instead pointed out that she is working on a screenplay about her Atari experiences. (D'Anastasio also points to a comment Bailey made in a 2012 interview about growing "a thicker skin" to work with men.)

The second, graphic designer Evelyn Seto, acknowledged "a couple negative experiences, but it was mostly innuendo." She then cut her Kotaku interview short: "I don't want to talk about it."

The rest of the piece confirms as many concrete details as it can about stories that have long circulated—which, D'Anastasio reminds readers, were "actively circulated" by Bushnell to up-sell the mythos and sexiness of Atari's most successful era. (In defending the infamous hot tub installed at Atari HQ, Reeder compared it to the in-office perks found at some of the world's most successful companies.)

"The 12 women I interviewed described Atari's culture as a product of the free-love '70s, but also, as an outgrowth of feminism's second wave, which helped empower women to seek equal workplace opportunities," D'Anastasio writes.

She continues:

"It was a different time," nearly all of them said at some point during our conversation. It's entirely possible that the women who choose to stay in touch and publicly affiliated with Atari's brand are bonded over their positive experiences. It's entirely possible unsavory and potentially damaging behavior occurred between men and women at Atari—but speaking up about 40-year-old incidents remains tricky for a variety of reasons.

Further Reading

The report is careful to remind readers that #NotNolan's advocates didn't set out to specifically tear Bushnell down. Instead, they spoke out because "holding him up for special honors in 2018 felt like it was sending the wrong message." To that end, D'Anastasio also speaks to game-industry historians about the culture of sexualized male dominance that followed Atari's success to other tech companies. Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

267 Reader Comments

The second, graphic designer Evelyn Seto, acknowledged "a couple negative experiences, but it was mostly innuendo." She then cut her Kotaku interview short: "I don't want to talk about it."

This is part of the problem that must be understood when evaluating hostile work environments: Those who didn't find it hostile will always find it easier to speak out than those who did. That's especially a concern in our post-GG world, where you have hordes of people online who pile on, harass and threaten any woman who alleges any sort of sexual misconduct or hostile work environment.

Some folks love to point out there were women who quickly came forward to defend Bushnell. Well, of course they came forward quickly, there's less to fear for women who aren't alleging hostile work environments. But a woman who quietly endured one for years isn't likely to rush to speak out so much.

I'm concerned Ms. Seto might get the MRAs' wrath just for making the limited comments above...

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Looking at it from today's perspective, Atari would rightly get shot down, and Nolan's behaviour would be inexcusable. But jumping on a bandwagon forty years later, when it appears that Nolan wasn't predatory, merely sexist (and I use the term 'merely' as although sexism not acceptable behaviour, it is still perfectly legal behaviour).

On top of this, Nolan has apologised unreservedly, and is happy to not accept the award. I really don't see what else can be done, or should be done.

Looking at it from today's perspective, Atari would rightly get shot down, and Nolan's behaviour would be inexcusable. But jumping on a bandwagon forty years later, when it appears that Nolan wasn't predatory, merely sexist (and I use the term 'merely' as although sexism not acceptable behaviour, it is still perfectly legal behaviour).

On top of this, Nolan has apologised unreservedly, and is happy to not accept the award. I really don't see what else can be done, or should be done.

Well, since Nolan is OK with not receiving the reward, it would be nice to see the angry mob be less angry about it, too.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

I am going to need some real meat in this story. Otherwise this seems like the kind of overreaction people have been whining about might happen in this movement.

For the report, she interviewed a compelling spectrum of women who are perhaps best equipped to speak to the question: Bushnell's female peers within Atari, as well as female industry researchers and historians. The report doesn't come close to a definitive answer, and its hesitation to render any verdict on the matter is perhaps its greatest strength.

[Bolded for emphasis]

This is one of the things I really like about Ars. I like that this isn't an outrage piece, or an apologist piece, but covers the story, and offers what I would consider to be a well balanced perspective that appears pretty unbiased to me.

The second, graphic designer Evelyn Seto, acknowledged "a couple negative experiences, but it was mostly innuendo." She then cut her Kotaku interview short: "I don't want to talk about it."

This is part of the problem that must be understood when evaluating hostile work environments: Those who didn't find it hostile will always find it easier to speak out than those who did. That's especially a concern in our post-GG world, where you have hordes of people online who pile on, harass and threaten any woman who alleges any sort of sexual misconduct or hostile work environment.

Some folks love to point out there were women who quickly came forward to defend Bushnell. Well, of course they came forward quickly, there's less to fear for women who aren't alleging hostile work environments. But a woman who quietly endured one for years isn't likely to rush to speak out so much.

I'm concerned Ms. Seto might get the MRAs' wrath just for making the limited comments above...

I respectfully disagree.

Ms. Seto isn't a woman trying to make it in the industry. Based on the timelines involved, I'd wager she's well past the age of giving a rat's ass. There would be pretty much zero consequences for her to come forward.

External consequences that is. I imagine that any hesitancy to talk would be for internal, highly personal reasons. That may be because of some sort of trauma, but that hasn't even been alluded to so far.

Looking at it from today's perspective, Atari would rightly get shot down, and Nolan's behaviour would be inexcusable. But jumping on a bandwagon forty years later, when it appears that Nolan wasn't predatory, merely sexist (and I use the term 'merely' as although sexism not acceptable behaviour, it is still perfectly legal behaviour).

Not only that, but it appears that Nolan wasn't overly sexist for his time frame. The Atari came out when I was a kid. I wasn't in the corporate environment then, of course, but I still remember those times and things were simply different then. That doesn't mean they were right; it doesn't mean that they didn't need to change. But it is very difficult for me to judge someone for their behavior then based on the standards of today. Some acts transcend their time frame. Someone who committed the acts Bill Cosby, for example, has been accused of (and I for one have little reason to doubt the accuracy of those accusations) is a vile human being regardless of when those acts occurred. But that's a very different type of behavior than innuendo and institutionalized sexism.

As I have said in a previous article on the same topic, judging actions of past with the morals of today should be avoided. Talking and learning from the past is important and should viewed in the context of what was acceptable at the time. Unless the actions were so reprehensible, let the events stand.

If we applied the current moral standards to historical figures, everyone would be a villain and written out of the history books. Those today may not think this will happen but consider how many things you do today that will leave some one in the future aghast. Any that eats meat today may be called a faunacidal maniac when lab grown proteins become common. One that drives a car will be a dirty gasser when carbon free transportation is the norm. Will you be a dastardly aquacrats freely wasting water by flushing toilet and watering lawns when fresh water becomes a scare resource? It may sound amusing but it may happen in 40 years.

Personally, I think denying Bushnell that “Pioneer” award doesn’t make a damned bit of sense. Even if he was even more boorish and sexist than the most salacious allegations, that doesn’t make him any less of a “pioneer”, and certainly no less of an historically important figure, and denying that serves only to delegitimize the controversy (“there was this guy who did bad things, but he wasn’t at all important, totally inconsequential actually, and the only thing to learn here is to erase what we could have learned”).

Perhaps the best solution would have been to also give him a “Controversial Exemplar of His Times” award and then use that to point out the things about him that we find objectionable in this time. Surely that would have had a more positive influence on the discussion than how things have played out. (And I’m pretty sure he would have accepted that award of dubious distinction as well)

Do people not realize how insane it is to strip someone of an award based on allegations, not a criminal conviction, but allegations of “sexual harassment” from 40 YEARS AGO? Damn Reagan for letting all the loonies out to procreate profusely.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

No, what you are saying is that “if a rapist where to invent the cure for cancer, let’s ignore that and concentrate on the rape”.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things doesn't make the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

Abraham also owned slaves and even also raped one of them. He's one of the most revered religious figures for about half the world's population.

In any time period, it's hard to be the one that decides "this is wrong, we should do better", and decides to stand against society, and be the one to do better. We should give people credit for acting on such beliefs, even if "better" isn't necessarily "congruent with our current mores". So, yes, both Jefferson and Washington should be lauded for treating their slaves better than their contemporaries, rather than condemned for treating black people so much worse than we today believe they should be treated. Similarly, Lincoln should be lauded for freeing the slaves, rather than condemned for still believing them inferior to whites.

(I used the term "rape" regarding Abraham's fathering a child with Hagar only because you used it regarding Jefferson fathering children with his slaves. In both cases, we don't really have any detail about the degree of willingness of the slave, beyond knowing they were slaves.)

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

I don’t think anyone believes that rape is ok, but going back in time to retroactively judge someone who lived in a totally different society is unproductive and a waste of time. Every race, gender and nationality can claim that they were oppressed by someone throughout history. It’s a fun exercise for the victimhood olympics, but does nothing to improve society.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

Don't you have to know something is wrong in order to be condemned for it? Pretty much our entire system of justice is based on that concept, with only a few types of crimes not requiring "mens rea" as part of a finding of guilt. Basically, under our justice system, being ignorant that your actions are illegal is not a defense, but being ignorant that your actions are wrong is a defense.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

That escalated to the extreme quickly. Talk about turning a school yard fight into global thermonuclear war.

No one is saying slavery is okay. As an institution, we as a society have decided to not permit slavery. To automatically lump everyone that even has any type connection to slavery as immoral and evil is just plain silly. To bring up the classic Thomas Jefferson example. Yes he was a slave owner as were most people like him in the day. It was a socially acceptable at the time. Societies evolve and morals change. To look back and suddenly wipe out a person's legacy for being a normal member of society is quite the moral power trip. Let history stand on its own. We need to hate the game not the player. How many things do we do today that will one day cause us to be looked upon as villiains and criminals?

I feel like it would be a lot more productive if these people spent a tenth of the time they do on creating/joining campaigns about the latest rumor, into building great companies. For example, my last job really sucked, so I decided I didn't want to work for other people again and started my own company.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

Don't you have to know something is wrong in order to be condemned for it? Pretty much our entire system of justice is based on that concept, with only a few types of crimes not requiring "mens rea" as part of a finding of guilt. Basically, under our justice system, being ignorant that your actions are illegal is not a defense, but being ignorant that your actions are wrong is a defense.

Criminally, yes (within certain contexts, but sure, let's run with it). But you can still be civilly liable for the damage you did to someone else without any intent and in complete ignorance. And that's under the justice system. Mens rea is about making sure that someone is not unjustly convicted of a crime. Civil damages are (again, speaking broadly) about making sure someone who was impacted by the actions of another is compensated. The criminal justice system looks at punishing people for what they did, in the context of the person who committed the action (it does try to bring other contexts back in, but ultimately it's very focused in that direction). The civil system looks at making sure that someone who was impacted by the actions of another can be made whole (ehhhh, in theory).

You can have no idea that you were doing something wrong, but your negative impact on someone else can still be judged, and you found accountable for it.

I'd say this is all moot because we're talking courts versus some private award, but in that context of courts, there you go.

Still, Atari's female veterans offer a rejoinder to that perspective: that Atari didn't "prepare us for the real world," due to what they called a more egalitarian treatment of women at Atari than the other tech companies they eventually worked for.

And I think that says all you need to know.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

I don’t think anyone believes that rape is ok, but going back in time to retroactively judge someone who lived in a totally different society is unproductive and a waste of time. Every race, gender and nationality can claim that they were oppressed by someone throughout history. It’s a fun exercise for the victimhood olympics, but does nothing to improve society.

A modern day award is, literally, the act of "going back in time to retroactively judge someone."

At the point when you are generating a new award, you don't get the luxury of pretending something didn't happen, nor how it is regarded from a modern perspective. Unless you're actually on the side of erasing history for your own convenience.

Do people not realize how insane it is to strip someone of an award based on allegations, not a criminal conviction, but allegations of “sexual harassment” from 40 YEARS AGO? Damn Reagan for letting all the loonies out to procreate profusely.

He wasn't "stripped" of the award. They had announced he would be receiving the award, but he hadn't actually received it yet. This isn't some case where they're making someone give back a statue they've had for decades, it was a public debate that happened over a span of hours and resulted in an immediate response. You're making it sound like he's being stripped of some decades-old award, which he's not.

I don’t think anyone believes that rape is ok, but going back in time to retroactively judge someone who lived in a totally different society is unproductive and a waste of time. Every race, gender and nationality can claim that they were oppressed by someone throughout history. It’s a fun exercise for the victimhood olympics, but does nothing to improve society.

A modern day award is, literally, the act of "going back in time to retroactively judge someone."

At the point when you are generating a new award, you don't get the luxury of pretending something didn't happen, nor how it is regarded from a modern perspective. Unless you're actually on the side of erasing history for your own convenience.

This. The award is being given in 2018, of course people are judging things by 2018 standards. It reflects what types of behavior people in 2018 want to reward, by virtue of the fact that it's a 2018 award.

The second, graphic designer Evelyn Seto, acknowledged "a couple negative experiences, but it was mostly innuendo." She then cut her Kotaku interview short: "I don't want to talk about it."

This is part of the problem that must be understood when evaluating hostile work environments: Those who didn't find it hostile will always find it easier to speak out than those who did. That's especially a concern in our post-GG world, where you have hordes of people online who pile on, harass and threaten any woman who alleges any sort of sexual misconduct or hostile work environment.

Some folks love to point out there were women who quickly came forward to defend Bushnell. Well, of course they came forward quickly, there's less to fear for women who aren't alleging hostile work environments. But a woman who quietly endured one for years isn't likely to rush to speak out so much.

I'm concerned Ms. Seto might get the MRAs' wrath just for making the limited comments above...

That's the... social media equivalent of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Under this logic, there is literally no way for anyone who's accused of workplace (or other) sexual misconduct to either counter the accusations. Literally none:

1. They deny the accusations - they're usually further accused of being 'tone-deaf' or just lying to protect themselves.

3. People point to (even valid) criticisms of the accusations or the accuser - harassment, patriarchy, trolls, etc

4. Evidence comes to light that the accuser has not been credible in the past - mud-slinging, character assassination, etc

Short of basically proof that the accused is innocent, which is both usually non-existent and also reverses the onus of proof, there's no way for the accused to defend themselves. That should go against everyone's notion of justice and fairness.

Even if you accept the premise that slavery is forgivable if the slaver never had any way of knowing it was wrong, there was an abolitionist movement in the eighteenth century. Jefferson was an intelligent person surrounded by other intelligent people. He was well aware of the arguments against slavery. He made his decision and he is responsible for it. Don't infantilize the man because he lived a long time ago; he was perfectly capable of making his own decisions on right and wrong.

Is right or wrong based how you view slavery today?

Of course there was an abolitionist movement. You will find a movement against everything. While I do not have a pet, 90% of my friends have at least a dog or cat. Within my circle of friends, I have two PETA members who are anti-animal slavery and bondage. They believe animals should not be kept as property for for the amusement of humans. In 200 years, we may no longer keep dogs, cats or animals as pets. Guess what? All those evil animal slavers should have known better because there was an abolitionist movement. Everyone should have been smart enough to know keeping animals as property is bad.

Do you eat meat? Do you think 200 years from now this will be acceptability? Do you use fossil fuels? How will history judge use of carbon based combustibles for energy 200 years into the future?

The second, graphic designer Evelyn Seto, acknowledged "a couple negative experiences, but it was mostly innuendo." She then cut her Kotaku interview short: "I don't want to talk about it."

This is part of the problem that must be understood when evaluating hostile work environments: Those who didn't find it hostile will always find it easier to speak out than those who did. That's especially a concern in our post-GG world, where you have hordes of people online who pile on, harass and threaten any woman who alleges any sort of sexual misconduct or hostile work environment.

Some folks love to point out there were women who quickly came forward to defend Bushnell. Well, of course they came forward quickly, there's less to fear for women who aren't alleging hostile work environments. But a woman who quietly endured one for years isn't likely to rush to speak out so much.

I'm concerned Ms. Seto might get the MRAs' wrath just for making the limited comments above...

That's the... social media equivalent of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Under this logic, there is literally no way for anyone who's accused of workplace (or other) sexual misconduct to either counter the accusations. Literally none:

1. They deny the accusations - they're usually further accused of being 'tone-deaf' or just lying to protect themselves.

3. People point to (even valid) criticisms of the accusations or the accuser - harassment, patriarchy, trolls, etc

4. Evidence comes to light that the accuser has not been credible in the past - mud-slinging, character assassination, etc

Short of basically proof that the accused is innocent, which is both usually non-existent and also reverses the onus of proof, there's no way for the accused to defend themselves. That should go against everyone's notion of justice and fairness.

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time".

Could you be any more disingenuous? (That was rhetorical)

Absolutely no one here is saying, or has even hinted at that.

Quote:

As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong.

(Emphasis added)

Of course it's wrong. But here's where your modern views are skewing your comprehension of the past. At the time, they generally weren't considered human. "Scientific" writings of the time would claim they weren't capable of feeling in the same ways people were - so it was perfectly fine to break up families, or beat them, or rape them -because they didn't feel it, really.

As a result, a lot of truly reprehensible and inexcusable behavior was overlooked, because in the overall views of the time, they weren't people and thus didn't require the same rights and protections as "actual people".

We look back at that now and are rightly horrified by such things - but yes, when viewing how people of the time treated their "livestock and property" - context very much matters. It still doesn't make it right that they owned (let alone additionally abused) slaves, but it does serve to highlight who was more enlightened for their times and helped start the ball rolling toward fixing things. As I often see thrown around here, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

To try and put this in some degree of perspective, let's look at an off the wall hypothetical:

150 years from now we discover that potatoes are sentient. Always have been. There's a long and drawn out fight over the discovery, civil unrest, eventually a 'potato rights' movement, and finally full, equal rights for potatoes, such that 200 years from now anyone looking back at us in the 21st century would regard us as barbaric monsters.

Would we be? By that definition, absolutely. But I doubt we're all running around laughing manically and rubbing our hands together as we put ketchup on our fries and go about our evil lives. We just don't know any better.

Regardless, putting the extremity of that example aside, it's a fairly safe bet to say that judged by the standards that will exist in 200 years, you, I, and pretty much everyone else will be considered abhorrent and barbaric for things that seem innocuous today.

As a result, I'm hesitant to use modern standards to make absolute judgments about the actions of people nearly a half century ago without also considering the context of those actions.

Ultimately, I try to look at the person's overall actions and conduct within the context of their times. Were they trying to do right and make things better overall even if they didn't go far enough or maybe get it quite right, or were they generally out there making things worse?

Quote:

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"?

If you're referring to the slew of downvotes - I suspect it's more that you're surrounded by people who recognize a terrible argument when they see it.

I think the employees are overlooking the possibility that they self-selected into that environment. They might have had a good time, or at least not minded the innuendo too much, and at the same time it could have been discouraging to other people. There's a lot of room between Weinstein et al. and deserving an award. It doesn't have to be super bad for the Pioneer decision to make sense.

It may not have been as "enlightened" as people feel they are today, but it was clearly well ahead of its time. That should count for something.

Thomas Jefferson was a "nice" slaveholder who didn't beat his slaves very much. And he only raped one or two of them. So that should count for something, right?

Yes. It means he was less of an evil person than the other people around him. But it doesn't reduce his actions. And neither does the fact that the 1970s were a different time from today mean that Nolan should not be held responsible for his actions: creating a hostile work environment and acting like Atari was a fraternity wasn't any more okay then than it is now - it was just harder to complain about it.

The fact that people do some good things AND some bad things Doesn'tmake the bad things okay. It makes them people, who do good and bad things; but in general, it's possible for the bad things to be sufficiently bad that they outweigh the good.

--Hello, this message is coming from 2175. Why should anyone listen to you? Sure everyone from your time ate meat, dove a vehicle or rode in transportation with an integral combustion engine, or, eww, procreated physically, and you were just doing what everyone else was doing, but you contributed significantly to creating the disaster we have had to overcome, therefore you are even worse than Thomas Jefferson.--

Judging the past with current morals is immoral

As I said. People are literally willing to say "slavery and rape is 100% okay because it was a different time". As if keeping slaves and raping people wasn't wrong. I guess my question would be why wasn't it wrong? Did raping people not hurt them back then? Was it impossible to function in society without raping people? (as using a car is for most people today)

Am I really surrounded by people who think "rape is totally fine in and of itself the only reason I don't do it is social pressure against it"? Is it really difficult to imagine that rape is bad because of the harm that it does?

I don’t think anyone believes that rape is ok, but going back in time to retroactively judge someone who lived in a totally different society is unproductive and a waste of time. Every race, gender and nationality can claim that they were oppressed by someone throughout history. It’s a fun exercise for the victimhood olympics, but does nothing to improve society.

A modern day award is, literally, the act of "going back in time to retroactively judge someone."

At the point when you are generating a new award, you don't get the luxury of pretending something didn't happen, nor how it is regarded from a modern perspective. Unless you're actually on the side of erasing history for your own convenience.

They certainly aren’t obligated to give him an award. But pretending he never existed, just to flatter our own sense of moral self-righteousness, helps us learn from history in exactly zero ways.